Alright.. that's enough religion.. you win.
The whole world now agree's with your religion..
Everyone on the planet has the same belief system as you..
Now what?
~
Printable View
Alright.. that's enough religion.. you win.
The whole world now agree's with your religion..
Everyone on the planet has the same belief system as you..
Now what?
~
Now we kill the Jews and Gays.
+1!
seriously though, what the shit are you on about?:P
:banana: :boogie: :banana: :boogie:
:boogie: :banana: :boogie: :banana:
Religions often think it best that the entire planet have the same beliefs system as them. Thus..
Thought experiment time:
Everyone on the planet has the same belief as you.
The planet is entirely suitable to every desire and variable of your belief system (eg. all jews are dead, all gays are dead, etc.).
Now what do you do?
~
Convert the aliens.
Well, If you believe St. Malachy (Irish), we won't exactly have long to dance on graves. He predicted that this Pope is the 2nd last before the tribulations.
Fact: He also said of Pope John Paul II, that he would be "The sun's labor". The Pope was born and died on a solar eclipse. When you take into account that he died in 1148 AD, It's fairly weird.
Also, both the Mayans and Nostradamus predicted that the world will end on December the 21st, so they all seem to coincide.
Interesting thread!!
Jehovah's Witnesses don't kill anyone. Ever. We are politcally neutral and don't even support war now-a-days. Many Jews have become Jehovah's Witnesses. Many homosexuals have stopped living that life-style and instead choose abstinence and become JW's. Same goes with murderers, rapists, drug abusers etc. The Bible can transform lives and everyone is acceptable to God as long as they meet his requirements.
That said, some time in the future, Satan and the demons will be abyssed for 1,000 years. During that time both the righteous and unrighteous will begin to be resurrected and given a chance to learn about God. After the 1,000 years Satan and his demons will be let out to test mankind one final time. Amazingly enough, most people will side with the Devil!
At that time, God will destroy everyone who sided with Satan.
After that, there will be complete world peace. Everyone will have their own land, build their own house, grow their own food. Even the animals will be no threat. Deserts will be made lush again and there will be plenty of food for everyone, plenty of space, and no government as we now know government. Adam could speak "directly" with God (it was likely an angelic messenger), so it's reasonable to conclude that that line of communication will be reopened. There will be some kind of order, but the Bible doesn't say anything about it. We just have to wait and see and be there to see :D
It's commonly believed among JW's that once the world is populated, reproduction will stop.
I personally cannot imagine a world without babies and children so I hold to the belief that other planets will be made hospitable and people will simply migrate to them.
People will never die, never war, and never stop learning about God and the things they enjoy. I like to imagine the sorts of clean technology that may be thought up and modes of transportation. I also like to imagine what the food would be like when it's no longer hampered by polution and the likes. How will the people learn about the deepest areas of the oceans?
A lot of people say they would be bored to death after even a couple hundred years but I think they have little imagination. Imagine the instruments that could be mastered or created and other forms of expression and art! And how little we know about the general world around us. The places that could be traveled to. Helping to fortify the growth of different species...
It's endless :)
Thanks for this topic. It's put me in a very good mood.
Obviously if everyone suddenly had the same belief people would just make up shit to argue about for the sake of arguing, and then the whole cycle would start again! :P
So there will be a distribution of resources in regards to land and food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhaylin
I presume this is mediated by God?
Do humans have free will in this reality?
You said that, in this state, we would be directly related to God, right? If there are species that need fortification, wouldn't this mean that the world is not in a perfect state? I am curious what that has to offer.Quote:
A lot of people say they would be bored to death after even a couple hundred years but I think they have little imagination. Imagine the instruments that could be mastered or created and other forms of expression and art! And how little we know about the general world around us. The places that could be traveled to. Helping to fortify the growth of different species...
It's endless :)
~
Next step would be to get all the chimps and gorilla's knowing perfect sign language and getting them to follow their code.
Thank God. Now we can get some peace and quiet. No more wars.
lol.. that's good. I guess the next step would be converting animals..Quote:
Originally Posted by joshiejack
So, what do you do instead..?Quote:
Originally Posted by hellohihello
~
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Kick back and relax!
For eternity?Quote:
Originally Posted by hellohihello
~
Until planetary invasion, civil war or an animal uprise or further evolution in another species.
Great questions, O'nus!
If you recall Adam and Eve, they were given the command to populate the earth and take care of it.
The same would be true of the new world. God is a God of order and the book of Isaiah and elsewhere says people would have pleasing work to do. It's just speculation on my part about what those jobs will be, but it's reasonable speculation.
God's not going to wave a magic wand and make everything perfect. That world would get boring quickly. But he will help.
Adam and Eve were to extend the boundary of the Garden. It's likely that people will have the same task. They'd work on one area at a time as much as possible for their location.
People will always have free will, but at that point they will also have perfect understanding as Adam and Eve had. If anyone ever tries to rebel they would be quickly destroyed because the issues would have already been settled and there would be no need to allow any time to pass.
And there will always be personal preferences. Just because someone COULD be a great painter doesn't mean they would want to lol. People will still be different and have the quarks that make us unique.
Is that bad lol?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
If my Christianity ruled the world we would all kick back in heaven.
The garden of eden is now gone. What would be the central focus of the "new world"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhaylin
If this is true, then you are saying that Adam and Eve ought not to have had any cultural or opinionated differences, right? So, how did we end up as we are now then? Certainly they are not immune to dissent as Adam and Eve have led to some sort of separation.Quote:
People will always have free will, but at that point they will also have perfect understanding as Adam and Eve had. If anyone ever tries to rebel they would be quickly destroyed because the issues would have already been settled and there would be no need to allow any time to pass.
Yes, I think it would be bad. You would want to spend all of eternity just sitting around? Sounds more like purgatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellohihello
~
Can't I eat all the food I want, sitting by the pool D: You can also have sex in heaven..... or so I was told but I have no proof of that because no one has been to heaven and back.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Aren't these both cardinal sins? ie. gluttony and lust?Quote:
Originally Posted by hellohihello
~
You know what you're right. I was picturing it as a 5 star resort but 100x better......But heaven is supposed to be "perfect" so I'll find out when I die..Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Well, it probably gets more and more ridiculous and then they try to turn everyone into fundies. More sects break out. e t c
I don't think O'nus was trying to get an actual answer. He was simply using the Socratic method to point out that religions live off of conflict and the claim of adversity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xox
Religious crack-down, anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xox
http://luciferknight.files.wordpress...nquisition.jpg
lol with hellohihello. That was always my problem with the typical view of heaven. The thought of floating around on clouds playing harps all day sounded absolutely dreadful!
Adam is the man which makes him head over the woman. A Christian husband is supposed to take the thoughts and concerns of his wife into serious consideration but the ultimate choice is his.
As the population grew and more men came into the picture they would have formed a "body of elders" of sorts where everyone would voice their opinions. But as with Moses and Aaron and the appointment of the older men to help deligate, the ultimate decision still rested on Moses.
It's likely, that in the future, a similar arrangement will be made so everything can be carried out and accomplished in a peaceful, orderly, and prodective manner.
Jehovah's Witnesses, of course, think the New System will be much like our congregation arrangement now in place. Now-a-days, we have "the Governing Body". In the US, they're situated in New York. They're men with the responsible for having literature published and distributed. They also receive "reports" from all the congregations in the US to see what personalized assistance needs to be addressed. From there we have Curcuit Overseers (CO). They're men assigned a territory. Locally, our CO covers most of West Virginia and some of Ohio. They travel to various congregations in their assigned area to address individual needs and to offer strength, encouragement, and counsel when needed. In Lousianna, however, when visiting several years ago, I learned that that area had 3 CO's because there were more congregations and more need.
From there, we have District Overseers. They too are men with a large territory and serve the same purpose of the CO (I may have them reversed. One has a smaller area to cover than the other.).
From there we have Presiding Overseers (PO's) though the lingo has changed and I no longer recall what they're now called lol. They oversee their single congregation.
And to help them are the Elders- a body of men assigned talks and who offer assistance, counsel and encouragement to the individual members personally.
They each work with one another to help run the congregations in unity as a whole. But each has more or less responsibility and ultimate control than the other.
We picture the New System operating much like that. And our own system is based off the stories of Moses as well as the 1st century Christians
To assume that everyone would adapt my belief system would be against my belief system. I believe that dissolving all conflict between living things is impossible.
So basically, I don't know and I don't care. It's pointless for me to even stipulate this.
What am I doing here?
That religion sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
(I did not realize their was a..... word minimum for posts.)
(Making a point that any religion that thinks everyone should have the same belief system sucks is warnable?)
Excuse me for not writing essays every time I post.
O'nus, if you would only get past the view of religious beliefs as a contest, you might actually find yourself developing religious/spiritual beliefs of your own.
I personally am a Catholic. I admit that I am not a very church-going person, however, I truly believe that there is a God, I support most of the Bible, and do my best to live as good a life as possible. I do, therefore, support most of Catholicism, however, I believe a good bit of (Leviticus?) is out of date. I see no problem with homosexuality, although I myself am straight, I quite regularly eat so-described "unclean" animals, and I despise the Fundamentalist Christian group in Britain Christian voice. I also believe that whilst I am a Catholic, I believe that if you are a genuinely good person, you will be allowed entry into heaven.
I guess you could say I'm just a tolerant Christian.
My mother always said that if you have nothing nice to say than do not say anything at all.
My head hurts! /This thread
It has nothing to do with nice. It has to do with opening your eyes and getting your blind ignorant ass out of the way so a more educated culture can proceed!
Religion I once thought of as a good crutch for society although I did not follow any particular religion.
Now I have come to believe humans have derived religions for the most part for selfish reasons and their inadequacies. Conscience and eternal life and lack of understanding.
Furthermore it inundates society with ignorant people that others have to eventually deal with in one form or another.
vented
Yeah, I wouldn't get my hopes up for sex. All the bible really mentions about heaven (activity wise) is 24/7 worship of God, and sex might distract you from that. So yeah, I wouldn't get my hopes up for anything other then constant worship and golden streets.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellohihello
Is not developing them bad though? You phrase that as if it's hindering his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I'd say inconsistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apopholis
call me what you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serkat
I will tolerate your comments
Hm? A contest? I do not view it as a contest at all. You're taking my thread title out of context. I am merely asking what you would do if the whole word had the same population as you. I'm not ranting about "winning" or "losing", lol. Come on now, look more into my contextual offerings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
~
I'd Imagine, since it seems to be humanities way, that if religious conflict was settled by one religion coming out on top with 100% believe then either sects would form in that religion or conflict would be more focused on resources and political ideas. However I personally think there will never be a religion with 100% of the population believing it, their would always be pockets of resistance.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
If however one religion did reign supreme and sects were not formed I would assume the world would be more likely to come together and focus to improving society by science(assuming the religion allows for it, which it may not fully) and settling any bitterness between nations.
However an unlikely alternative cause might be a large amount of apathy. If every single human believes in heaven, they all agree there is a paradise after death, they might decide their is no point working in this life. I doubt it would happen as it's not like religious people do nothing with their lives but if everyone believed in an afterlife it's a possibility.
In the defense of O'nus (not that he needs my help lol)... I never took this thread to be a challenge. I thought it was an excellent way to learn about the beliefs of others, not shoot them down or resort to name calling.
Not all religious people are bigots. That is an oxymoron. God is love and accepts all people regardless of race, nationality or background. Of course, we need to prune ourselves of undesirable qualities in order to properly grow the fruitage of the spirit and be desirable to God for him to even WANT us to be part of his New World. But that applies equally to everyone. Even long time Christians can become effected by the negative attitude and qualities that the world as a whole often-times presents. It takes constant work and diligence (which is why I'm NOT part of my congregation right now- I let the anxieties of life come between me and God).
Christians shouldn't be button-holed with the failures of the past or with unpleasant personal experiences. True Christians follow the footsteps of Christ. They are outspoken when they see blatant wrong-doing going on by people who know better... but they are soft spoken, gentle, encouraging and patient to those who don't. But Christians are still imperfect people, doing the best they can and they make mistakes from time to time just like everyone else. But their predominant quality is love. If if's not, then they're not really a Christian.
It's like someone who is robbed by someone of another race and then hating EVERYONE of that race. It's not logical and it's not fair.
/end rant
I definitely understand that logic and emotion don't always agree. It's just sad when people can't even have a pleasant and inspiring conversation without someone acting out of emotion and not seeing the joy that's being shared.
I don't agree with all of the views expressed, but I respect them and I'm happy they're sharing something so personal to them.
Awesome. So you believe that homosexuality is a choice? The concept of abstinence is ridiculous and self-harming enough, but for gays to repress who they are because they think they can "get better" is ludicrous. I feel sorry for those who got duped by Jehovah's Witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhaylin
Oh, so now you put gays in the same category as murderers, rapists and drug abusers. Wow. That just goes to show how tolerant your beliefs are. :roll:Quote:
Same goes with murderers, rapists, drug abusers etc. The Bible can transform lives and everyone is acceptable to God as long as they meet his requirements.
I didn't place it in that category- God did via the Bible 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
"What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers [often associated with such is violence and aggression but I apologize that I misused the words I used] , nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God."
The point is not for PEOPLE to pass judgement (especially against those who don't know). It's to teach them that EVERYONE has a CHOICE and what God expects from us.
Are you trying to imply that a lack of sex can kill people? There are lots of "straight" people who never have sex for one reason or another or remain single and sexless for personal or religious reasons. Are all of them unhappy, unhealthy and miserable?
So, please don't jump to conclusions about how I feel. I, myself, am bi. I'm actually more lesbian than heterosexual but I made a choice.
I don't think being gay is as bad as killing someone or stealing from them or worshiping false gods. If you notice it's the ACTION that is disapproved of by God.
Anyhow, I'm bowing out of the conversation now because I don't EVER want to come across as harsh, unreasonable, or intolerable. I'm sorry I did and I don't want to pull this thread away from it's original purpose.
DeeryTheDeer,
I think Zhaylin is simply saying that they are not choosing to be gay, but just to not act on it.
Why it is felt that acting on it is wrong may be up for debate but that is not what this thread is about.
But on a spin, what if everyone on the planet had the same view towards sexuality? Does this prevent the hereditary changes that cause homosexual behaviour? Of course not, so, what happens in the world of "your beliefs"? This is my question.
~
This topic is based on a hypothetical question; it is already out of context to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
What's the point of this thread; what are you implying?
I didn't mean to personally attack you, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm just tired and angry at what religion tells people to think, say and do. That passage is something I personally have a big problem with. It seems to have a very harsh, condemning tone, and while I don't have a problem with the bible condemning people who are greedy or murder or lie, because those things are obviously hurtful and destructive, I do have a problem with the bible condemning sex, masturbation and homosexuality. I really can't see what is so wrong with those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhaylin
Sure, people don't have to pass judgement, but they do all the time when it says so in the bible. I've seen a lot of people spew hate against gays, and then when asked about it, hide behind the feeble excuse, "I didn't say it, the bible says it". Well, the bible is wrong and is causing you to hate and discriminate against others without reason or evidence whatsoever. It doesn't even state what is wrong with men sleeping with men, it just says 'no men sleeping with men'. I don't buy following rules without reason, for fear of not going to heaven. That's the most manipulative form of control there is.
Sure people who never have sex don't die, but it's not healthy either. Studies have shown that men who regularly masturbate decrease their risk of prostate cancer, as opposed to those who don't. We live in a sexually repressed society that makes us feel guilty for having natural, sexual thoughts and actions, and so that repression comes out in unhealthy ways, like rape, pedophilia, adultery and the constant sexualization of almost everything we perceive, and of course the media is a blown up emphasis of our problem (we censor all the "bad" stuff even while it's implied and shown way too much). We also have very high rates of depression and other illnesses.
So I think my point is, the bible is definitely not going to lead me to a more fulfilling life, and the reason I care why others believe it is because they're causing others (like gays) undue suffering, whether they think they're giving them a free choice or not, as well as themselves for being repressed and controlled by mysterious and mostly illogical rules, and fear.
Well, I'm not sure how to completely answer that, but this YouTube video seems in line with what I would like to say:Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg
In short, if no one believed in the bible or other beliefs without evidence to back it up (I'm going to avoid the word 'atheist' for the sake of removing common misconceptions), and did what they thought was right because they thought it for themselves, with their own brain and free will, the world certainly would be nowhere near as screwed up as it is today. I believe in the power of us human beings if we apply ourselves right, not in a personal God, or unfounded, archaic rules.
I think that if everyone belonged to the same religion and had the same level of faith and zealousness (is that a word?)--which seems unlikely--one of three things would happen:
1. The extreme centralization of power would eventually lead to the humanities downfall, because a world religion implies unbridled influence (left unchecked for an undefined amount of time would become highly unpredictable).
2. The world would become extremely boring and redundant for...who knows how long.
3. Someone would eventually rebel against it, in a pursuit of similar power and influence. (In my mind, the most likely result.)
But who knows. Kind of a scary thought.
:eek:
Thankyou Deery and I'm sorry for being so snipey. I was up playing video games all night and all day and missed sleep and it's made me a little cranky and sensitive.
You're welcome, and it's okay, I think we're both out of whack lately (I've got a bad cold). :P
Hope you feel better quickly!!
If everyone had the same belief system as I did... The first item on the agenda would be to discover the best possible technologies that could coexist in harmony with the rest of the planet. Petroleum for use as fuel is outlawed. New propulsion and energy generation becomes the immediate focus for researchers in the appropriate fields around the world. Dams are torn down. All of them. There'd be financial incentives for companies willing to open up who's purpose would be to recycle the wide range of materials that would normally go into landfills.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
The list goes on. There'd be more outdoor-active people, that's for certain. Everyone would likely connect on a different personal level. You're familiar with that connection when you meet someone with similar life-philosophies, don't you? It would be much easier to coordinate with everyone else if we shared similar/identical goals. The real goal though, in the long run, is for personal growth. The peaceful orientation is to prevent one's own growth from stemming from the harm of something else. Does that make sense?
What I'm saying is, although the goal of the popular religions is usually to convert as many of the rest of us as possible, that is not the goal of religion in general. Some religions have the goal of gaining personal understanding independent of what others believe. Others have the goal of reconsiling ones own personal understanding with what other's believe while still recognizing those other's beliefs as valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
All I'm saying is that your threads typically bring a shallow understanding to religion and theology as a whole by focusing only on a pop culture view of what it means to be religious. If this is your intent; to address pop culture, then thats fine, but it doesn't really lead to any personal growth or understanding.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
and
http://www.dreamstime.com/dog-urinating-thumb24336.jpg
Sounds like a nice story of dystopia, this thread.
I can't imagine the world as a whole. I am all too focused on the children born into this stagnant new world, who have different ideas, and are most cruelly silenced (whether it be through brainwashing, or newthought genocide).
If everyone was the same religion, the competition would not be between religions, but instead, between adherence to religion. Our unified religion would split into fundamentalist and lenient groups. . . No, that wouldn't happen. If everyone was the same religion, and that is all they've known, then I stand by my thought at the beginning: any person with a new thought would perish in some form.
As a product of this, science would come to a standstill.
If everyone had my religion.
I don't have a religion.
Unless everyone was atheist, I don't think people would accept the idea of "no God."
But then, that would be much like the situation with all religion. People would fear and cast out pseudoscience and spirituality. Not saying that's what I do, but the thread topic is "What if everyone had the same religion?" and not "What if everyone had the same thought process?" (the latter is, by far, the worst scenario).
If everyone respected the teachings of the Buddha, particularly the transience of form and the utility of compassion, while admitting a degree of Universalism and therefor taking any particular path that suits them and allowing others the same latitude?
I imagine we'd be doing much the same things we're doing now, but happier, and better.
So, basically, we'd be using bigger bombs in Iraq, and with a big smile on our faces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Just kidding, first of all, I'm Irish, so I can't really say "we", and second, I know what you mean. I believe in the dream of peace. Do I think it's a conceivable reality? No.
So what I'm picking up from this thread is, when the jehovah's witnesses become the undisputed religion (lol) god will start letting us metagame and be aware of the sick game that he plays, but still tell us to keep playing? damn, thats a sadistic bastard.
I'd suggest that O'nus should have suggested a particular religion, since religion itself if a very general term that can apply to a great number of different beliefs. Each of these beliefs can effect the world in a number of varying ways, depending on which system it is the world would believe in. To pick one religion for the thread though, I think, could possibly illicit some hostile feelings from members of other systems of belief/non-belief/what-have-you.
The world could still end up being a violent place even with one universal religion, depending on which was chosen.
I'm not sure you gwt O'nus' point?Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
Had he been divergent and proposed one particular religion the thread would have got muddled up with specifics to that one religion. Which would have surely digressed it's point.Quote:
Alright.. that's enough religion.. you win.
The whole world now agree's with your religion..
Everyone on the planet has the same belief system as you..
Now what?
Isn't it that religion requires a faith base belief system, which is the main underlying principle to what he may be implying?
Well, I assumed he wanted to know what our opinions would be in regards to what the world would be like if everyone held the same system of beliefs: If there could be no more discrimination based upon difference of beliefs. I made a post earlier that detailed what I thought the world would be like not under a religion, but based on personal beliefs. It's in this sense that I figured that people's answers will be different depending on what their system of beliefs/religion entails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
My problem, after I reviewed this thread and my answer, was this: I didn't consider that the variation in answers caused by the different beliefs would be what was desired. One person might be Hindu, another may be Jewish, one an Atheist, but if they don't specify under which system of beliefs the world would be governed to answer the question, the source of the variation in answers could'nt be as easily identified. Does that make sense? So, if I can correct myself here, I should have said earlier that people may want to specify what their beliefs actually are in regards to this question, prior to giving their answer (and that the rephrasing of the original post should not be altered, as I had otherwise earlier suggest). I hope I was clearer here.
I see what you mean. That is a good point. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
I could not figure out anything close to a definitive answer before, now I have to go back and rethink it all over.
:shock: LOL
@IT + Howie,
I don't know about purpose, but the main effect of the thread is to flush out those who think there's one right answer to life, the universe and everything. Regardless of what answer we choose--Rapture, Eudamonia, or Universalism--the results are absurd.
Of course, I believe Universalism wins :D If everyone on earth adopts Universalism, then the one thing everyone believes in is not believing in the same thing, making it both the most and least absurd option.
No. Without religion, there is no need for war in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apopholis
With or without religion, there is no need for any war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
But that is, of course, only according to my awareness of it.
If we no longer have our divine lords and saviors whispering in our priests' ears to tell us which men, women, and children to hack down! Of course! We wouldn't even need to fight for food and supplies, let alone territory!Quote:
Originally Posted by really
:roll:
Obviously they are not "divine lords" and "saviors" then, are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu
Sarcasm aside, as long as there is a division of the human species into groups of any kind, we will compete with each other for things, be they necessary to our survival or not. Of course, taking away irrational beings like gods and their psychopathic mandates for humanity out of the equation will help considerably. However, war will never die until there is no need for humans to compete with each other. But when will that be?
Advanced democracies don't go to war with each other. There is a totalitarian dick involved in every war. If the whole world is ever democratic, wars between nations will be a thing of the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu
yep, fact: The only time one democracy declared war on another was when britain declared war on finland. there was never even weapons raised against each other.
(I'm not directly responding to the OP. Partly I am, but in some parts I'm reffering to other posts. Just so you understand what I'm saying.)
Some people are suggesting that if everyone had the same religion, or if there was none at all, there would be less war and crap and manipulation of peoples lives. Wrong.
If everyone agreed to one religion, people would manipulate other factors of belief, there would be other radical organizations and such. People would take advantage of the situation and manipulate as they've always done.
Unless you're saying there will be no corrupt individuals and everyone will be legitimatley religous, in which case we may as well not be human anymore as our nature has just been thrown out the window.
Unless of course the suggestion that everyone would have the same belief system is taken one step further. If so, that wouldn't fall in line with the way I view my religion at all, quite the opposite. So I suppose that part wouldn't relate to me.
The division only exists in our animal minds. Being racist is not the same as accepting the vast culture and human diversity on this planet. To see that one is black and another white is far too often attributed with stereotypes and prejudice. Without them, we are family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu
Like I said, there is already no reason. But in what context? I am aware of this, does that mean that others are aware? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu
We are human; you can see the vast multitudinous expressions of mankind, from the most loving to the most hating. Really, we are all reasoning to our own reason; this can be illustrated in consciousness. There is no "cause" out there that is causing wars. It is a natural tendency of human consciousness. The source of a seeming problem is resolved in evolution; in increasing awareness; increasing context; expanding meaning.
If every person in the world was a Christian, theoretically there would only be joy. No thievery, no murder, no dangerous drugs (I say dangerous because Marijuana is hardly dangerous), no over indulgence, no child or adult porn, none of that. I would think it would be a pretty happy and go lucky place.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Now tell me, what if the entire world was Atheist?
I do not understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruscainte
There are Christians today who do everything you just said they wouldn't be doing. Everyone, regardless to their beliefs, are still subject to their humanity. Some are better at controlling their urges than others, and some feel the urge to do something they consider "wrong" less than others. Personal morals come from within, not from outside systems of belief (although guidelines from a religion or set of laws may certainly be adopted and followed).
If the world were entirely atheist? Technological advancements would be accelerated, at the very least.
That's assuming everyone stopped being people and became perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruscainte
O'nus was talking about everyone sharing the same ideology.
If everyone were Atheist, then everyone would be atheist. They'd still be people, with thoughts and feelings and emotions all based on their own situations.
Are you truly confident in this..? Has not history shown that Christians are capable of all these wrongs? Do I really need to list and demonstrate how Christians are capable of committing wrongs? Would the whole entire being Christian really change this..? How? Christians still do wrong to other Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruscainte
I do not feel confident in your answer and highly doubt its plausibility.
~
This man speaks truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Why are you so smart? It's impossible not to sin. It is possible to cut down on sin though. NoChristian.. ANYONE in the right mind shouldn't murder.
I think Fruscainte was referring to true Christians, I.e. those who are devoted to the Lord and show integrity, respect and love to others. Then again, we are human beings anyway; all capable of likely mistakes and animal behaviors.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Nevertheless, your question was, again, purely hypothetical. Therefore you cannot expect detailed or realistic answers, as there is no stated realistic context to begin with.
I agree, we've given Christians since the Dark Ages to have a majority of people follow them and I've seen nothing but hate and war caused by Christian churchs..Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
You realize that every Christian thinks that they are a "true" Christian?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
This answer is not realistic to begin with. "True" is a contextually relevant thing, and relying on it for the answer that "the world be peaceful" is not plausible. Sorry, but they are not perfect.Quote:
Nevertheless, your question was, again, purely hypothetical. Therefore you cannot expect detailed or realistic answers, as there is no stated realistic context to begin with.
~
Everybody has an opinion of themselves, regardless. That's beside the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Yes, they are not plausible, because you have not stated anything plausible to begin with, again. Please start a realistic, genuine topic, if anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
What..? The point of my thread was the idea of everyone living in the world to have your beliefs - what is the next step then? Nothing more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
~
O'nus, my point is that your hypothetical thread does not provide a realistic context or question, and thus you shouldn't complain if people's answer's are likewise unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Honestly now, what is more ridiculous; the several religions claiming that the world ought to completely embrace their religious faith, or my hypothetical question of what to do after the entire world has done that?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I hope you see my point instead of just trying to end the conversation. Because, you're right, it is unrealistic.
~
Those religions are cynical, to think they can get every single body to...Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
:bowdown:
Is just hopeful ignorance for them, my beliefs certainly don't call for everyone to be a cookie cutter religious follower. That seems to be just one of the many problems in certain major religions.
I see you're point vaguely, but either way it is still hypothetical and more of a Senseless Banter topic. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
A religious intention is not the same as what you're implying. It is a general spiritual intention to bring peace to the world, though not through "saving the world", but through saving oneself. To spread the good news and encourage faith is not to argue that this is ridiculous, but that it holds a uniting purpose and a valuable possibility. One is a judgment from the intellect, the other is contrastingly aware in spirit. The intellect is lost in an endless day dream; the spirit is values waking up.
Arn't you one for personal enlightenment and development? I am trying to make a thread to offer a challenge to peoples personal beliefs (ie. that the world would be better if everyone believed what you believe) and, yet, you now call that senseless banter..?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Quit trolling.
That is not what all religious people will say. Do we really need references for those that believe that all infidels out to be killed or that the entire world should have your beliefs? It is not a fact that all religious people think that "I need to save myself" - why do you think missionaries exist? To save yourself in service to God - AND OTHERS. This is not even mentioning the others that think the world needs "religious emancipation/cleansing/etc.".Quote:
A religious intention is not the same as what you're implying. It is a general spiritual intention to bring peace to the world, though not through "saving the world", but through saving oneself.
There is a difference between spreading your sincere intent and quelling the idea that your beliefs need to dominate the world.Quote:
To spread the good news and encourage faith is not to argue that this is ridiculous, but that it holds a uniting purpose and a valuable possibility. One is a judgment from the intellect, the other is contrastingly aware in spirit. The intellect is lost in an endless day dream; the spirit is values waking up.
really - stop trolling, you're really trying hard to make me out to be an arrogant intellectual empiricist rather than seeing my good intent! I know many Christians have good intent and I am able to befriend many of them very easily.
Chill out and actually read what I am offering rather than trying your hardest to prove me wrong on something.
Here's my crucial point in this thread:
- Your beliefs will never encompass the entire world
- Thinking that your beliefs ought to encompass the entire world is folly
That is all.
~
I'm fine thanks, quite chilled actually. ;)
The point is, again (how many different ways do I have to say it?) that you try to challenge beliefs or state a point with a hypothetical situation, or that which has no reality to begin with.
From there, the thread can merely propagate from personal whim and opinion. "What if pink elephants were all dancing in your front yard? I challenge your love for elephants and the color pink. Now what?" We can describe the likelihood of this, but the consequences or hindsight arguments are imaginary.
Beliefs exist in a persons mind. Whether or not the beliefs themselves are correlating with a Truth that is omnipresent is a different matter.Quote:
Your beliefs will never encompass the entire world
A standard of belief or world-view paradigm is naturally self-approved and inflated. Don't you believe all should think as you do? Since no body lives within the same socio-cultural context nor is living within the same prevailing field of consciousness, the "whole world" together living in a concordant belief system highly unlikely (Edit: Even if the collective consciousness was very high, there would still be people at more advanced states of consciousness).Quote:
Thinking that your beliefs ought to encompass the entire world is folly
However, I believe the point of the expression is that we all strive together for the changeless Truth that is innate to existence; that humanity love one another, as one family. That we all share the same source, we all perceive the good and grow at our own pace.
There is no argument or challenge stemming from the "Now what?" position, which only begs for inaccuracy. If anything, we can describe the likelihood of such an "event", but even that falls short. To have everyone believe the same thing at the same time ignores many contributing factors. This does not render the intention of collective belief as fallacious, however.
That's the point. I agree with you entirely - what the hell do you think I am trying to argue?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Yes, we have encountered your view of truth before. The point is not about that but about people wanting everyone to have their beliefs - which you are giving an further step into calling the omnipresent belief. I'm not entirely sure how far you are taking that, but you must realize that I FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU.Quote:
Beliefs exist in a persons mind. Whether or not the beliefs themselves are correlating with a Truth that is omnipresent is a different matter.
Really? How? Perhaps in your explanation of this - you will realize that my point is the exact same point you are making.Quote:
There is no argument or challenge stemming from the "Now what?" position, which only begs for inaccuracy. If anything, we can describe the likelihood of such an "event", but even that falls short. To have everyone believe the same thing at the same time ignores many contributing factors. This does not render the intention of collective belief as fallacious, however.
Please try to avoid mentioning your "truth" - it's digressive and annoying as it comes up every time you post. "But it's crucial to everything I say" - that's cool, but work with the hypothetical situation and it's principles without trying to integrate your own personal philosophy before fundamentally proving it - which we have been over before cannot be done.
Why am I talking to you?
~
Begging the question aside, this irony is worth noting: even in pointing out that it's absurd to expect everyone to believe as we do, we're expressing a wish for everyone to believe as we do. What I found valuable and amusing in this thread is that even the belief that there can and should be no conformity tacitly asks that the world conform to this belief, which in turn reinforces the position against seeking conformity.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
The proposition is supported by its own fallacy, proven through refutation :mwahaha:
You said:Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
By saying it holds no reality, it is unrealistic and invalid. What is up for discussion?Quote:
I am trying to make a thread to offer a challenge to peoples personal beliefs (ie. that the world would be better if everyone believed what you believe) and, yet, you now call that senseless banter..?
Please be more clear, you are not consistent. You don't seem to be understanding at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Ok then what is my point?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
This is not my problem. You have entered R/S, so expect to hear peoples beliefs on R/S.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I don't know what your problem is.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Yes, that is quite interesting. Human nature. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
For the exact reasons you said; it is an impossible situation, it is unrealistic. This is what my intention is to demonstrate to those that think that it IS realistic or plausible to have their beliefs be omnipresent.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Quite the opposite.Quote:
Please be more clear, you are not consistent. You don't seem to be understanding at all.
From my understanding, you seem to think that I am trying to negate people's beliefs by challenging the idea that it cannot be universalized. Whereas, it is just my intention to demonstrate that it cannot become omnipresent - which you have hinted that you agree with. I am not arguing or competing any beliefs other than the idea that a personal belief ought be omnipresent or dominate the world.Quote:
Ok then what is my point?
This is not justification to bring your own personal meandering into every single post regardless of the topic. If the topic is about a thought experiment, stick to the thought experiment instead of trying to derail the thread and talk about your own personal bullshit that you have a severe tendency to do.Quote:
This is not my problem. You have entered R/S, so expect to hear peoples beliefs on R/S.
You consistently try to digress threads by integrating your own personal philosophy into everything rather than work with the individuals beliefs at their time. All while ostensibly saying to yourself that you're respecting the individual and subjectivity and yet you claim that it cannot be demonstrated and taught yet, here you are, pontificating it in almost every post of yours. What you are doing is called trolling, but you rationalize it as sharing your thoughts and opinions which contradicting yourself by saying that it cannot be demonstrated or spoken about.Quote:
I don't know what your problem is.
We've been over it before, and yet you continue to denigrate every thread into your own selfish agenda. Stop it.
~
You're mixing concepts. If it is non-existent, unrealistic or hypothetical - you cannot use it as an argument; you cannot state a point. You are challenging from a non-existent reality, which is invalid. You have nothing to argue about and no grounds on which to rest one.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Considering what I said above, you have read my words backwards. When I said: "Beliefs exist in a persons mind. Whether or not the beliefs themselves are correlating with a Truth that is omnipresent is a different matter." I mean believing in something that is everywhere True; an omnipresent Truth. Not an omnipresent belief, in the context where it is believed everywhere, but as in the subject of belief, that which is believed or known.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
If it is a serious "thought experiment", which ignores ones beliefs systems or spiritual understandings, it does not belong in this subforum board.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Having "been over it", you still persist in trying to criticize my entire forum behavior, mixing your famous problems and sticking them all together in one paragraph; ignoring many important contexts and thereafter wailing in narrow skepticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
As you're mixing problems with impatience, I'm not going to "stop" what is merely relative to yourself. So what really needs to be stopped is constraining perception and shallow criticism. I can give this personal advise, that is, if you are genuinely interested. I cannot "stop" what you're perceiving, however, because it has no external existence.
That's the point, fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Right, so you are making the leap that, because it is a belief, and that it stems from "truth", it is true? If that is so, then every belief is true - including Franks that he is God or Timmy about Captain Howdy being real. That is just utterly stupid.Quote:
Considering what I said above, you have read my words backwards. When I said: "Beliefs exist in a persons mind. Whether or not the beliefs themselves are correlating with a Truth that is omnipresent is a different matter." I mean believing in something that is everywhere True; an omnipresent Truth. Not an omnipresent belief, in the context where it is believed everywhere, but as in the subject of belief, that which is believed or known.
That wasn't my point. Read what I am saying.Quote:
If it is a serious "thought experiment", which ignores ones beliefs systems or spiritual understandings, it does not belong in this subforum board.
I am challenging the belief of having your belief be omnipresent (or match omnipresent) and you are bringing in your own philosophy of subjectivity and truth, as usual, changing the topic and claiming that others just "misunderstand" or "miss the point" of what you are saying. But I am surely just misguided, correct?
Yes - you have no reason for anyone else, but yourself, to believe what you believe, and you admit this, and yet you still pontificate it while hypocritically saying that "I know nothing" but yet are capable of offering such "enlightenment" or "divine truth" that you apparently know "nothing of".Quote:
Having "been over it", you still persist in trying to criticize my entire forum behavior, mixing your famous problems and sticking them all together in one paragraph; ignoring many important contexts and thereafter wailing in narrow skepticism.
You are again stuck in your arrogant and isolated world of subjectivity and ignoring the external world while imaging yourself as being in the dominant knowledge of all things. Way to go. One day, I hope you realize that there are things that exist outside of peoples subjective and independent perceptions which they cannot control or choose to perceive - and those things are things you are capable of controlling and helping others with. What do you think learning and mentoring is? A completely subjective experience? Don't be dumb.Quote:
As you're mixing problems with impatience, I'm not going to "stop" what is merely relative to yourself. So what really needs to be stopped is constraining perception and shallow criticism. I can give this personal advise, that is, if you are genuinely interested. I cannot "stop" what you're perceiving, however, because it has no external existence.
~
That is the point, now do you see the major flaw in this thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
What leap? I don't have to do anything. "The Truth" (sometimes capitalized with Self, God and Reality) comes from spiritual dialogue. It is called the Truth because it is the Absolute and beyond all refutation and argument. If it was Captain Howdy or Franks inflated self-image, you would not benefit for Enlightenment nor read about it being the Truth in relation.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Speak for yourself, read what I have already said! You do not know what you're "challenging", otherwise. This: "Beliefs exist in a persons mind. Whether or not the beliefs themselves are correlating with a Truth that is omnipresent is a different matter." I mean believing in something that is everywhere True; an omnipresent Truth. Not an omnipresent belief, in the context where it is believed everywhere, but as in the subject of belief, that which is believed or known.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
There is no "omnipresent belief" to be argued about. There is a belief in "the omnipresent" or omnipresence of God.
Correct, you are misguided in that you think I am "claiming that others just misunderstand". This is not my personal philosophy that is relative to myself, please read some spiritual literature and dialogue.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Sure, the "see what sticks" method; pick and choose what you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
By the way, you have no idea what you're criticizing, nor what holds good intention behind the subject of realization itself.
I don't think you understand the point of this thread then - can you possibly tell me what it is without deviating the topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
That has nothing to do with what I was asking you. You made the insinuation that anything stemming from "the Truth" is, in fact, true because of where it comes from.Quote:
What leap? I don't have to do anything. "The Truth" (sometimes capitalized with Self, God and Reality) comes from spiritual dialogue. It is called the Truth because it is the Absolute and beyond all refutation and argument. If it was Captain Howdy or Franks inflated self-image, you would not benefit for Enlightenment nor read about it being the Truth in relation.
Right. I am not arguing over that at all - I don't know how you think I am. It is a futility to have a belief that is similar to that which is omnipresent or ubiquitous within the world, etc.Quote:
Speak for yourself, read what I have already said! You do not know what you're "challenging", otherwise. This: "Beliefs exist in a persons mind. Whether or not the beliefs themselves are correlating with a Truth that is omnipresent is a different matter." I mean believing in something that is everywhere True; an omnipresent Truth. Not an omnipresent belief, in the context where it is believed everywhere, but as in the subject of belief, that which is believed or known.
There is no "omnipresent belief" to be argued about. There is a belief in "the omnipresent" or omnipresence of God.
I have read spiritual literature and dialog - I've also already cited it to you and told you my teachers name - but, those are not your spiritual teaching, so it's misguided, apparently - and that is where you are, in fact, misguided.Quote:
Correct, you are misguided in that you think I am "claiming that others just misunderstand". This is not my personal philosophy that is relative to myself, please read some spiritual literature and dialogue.
Take a look over your past posts and you will see that you have a constant behaviour of telling others that they do not understand your philosophy of "the truth" or spirituality. Your arrogance is ubiquitous while maintaining yourself by getting a rise out of others incapability to argue something which is unfalsifiable which reinforces the idea for yourself - because nothing can prove what you are saying is wrong, and that only makes it seem all the more true to ("How can you prove the True infinite wrong?!").
Quote:
Sure, the "see what sticks" method; pick and choose what you like.
By the way, you have no idea what you're criticizing, nor what holds good intention behind the subject of realization itself.
Of course - no one does except you, right? Go preach elsewhere with your unfalsifiable and bias nonsense. It is only condescending and the worst part is that you hold yourself to be a curator of a spiritual path and knowledgeable of spirituality while completely isolating yourself in the subjective.
~
The point of this thread is baseless and hypothetical. Tell me how the below is a valid argument or any so called "challenge" while holding actual accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
"The whole world now agree's with your religion..
Everyone on the planet has the same belief system as you..
Now what?"
Philosophy: The whole world turns into a giant orange. Now what?
The Truth is True because of what it is. The spiritual foundations are of "Truth", what are you asking? Where did I say it "comes from", anyway? The religious deviations is obviously a far more complex, cultural matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
You mentioned only one teacher vaguely, and did not even follow his teachings for enlightenment apparently (therefore he was irrelevant to this purpose). You also mentioned a false teacher, who you made up for fun. Is this supposed to be convincing and how is it genuine?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I don't think you have done much spiritual reading at all, perhaps because your primary motivation seems to be focused on refuting its reality rather than learning about it yourself. You look for science in non-science. But that is my opinion, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sometimes you have to accept that this is true. God is commonly argued and misunderstood. You see, the main person I argue with is actually YOU. But you can't accept that you might be taking things out of context and analyzing what is totally unrelated.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
And you take a pessimistic position and look for reasons to argue while totally oblivious of ways in which the information can be helpful. I could save you some time and effort. Unfortunately, on the other hand I could also serve as a major problem within your over-analysis and intellectualization. A point of perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Nobody knows what it's like to be "me", but myself. Likewise, nobody knows what it's like to be "you", but yourself. Do you see me telling you to piss-off out of the forums if not demanding total justification of your belief systems? "Preaching" or not, you are probably just as passionate for what you believe in.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
See, what you are saying is exactly my point though. Don't focus on the "now what" part but, in fact, what you are focusing upon - the unrealistic nature of the situation. Do you not say the same thing to Rob from X religion whom wants everyone to believe what he believes?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I can see this is a deviation. No worries.Quote:
The Truth is True because of what it is. The spiritual foundations are of "Truth", what are you asking? Where did I say it "comes from", anyway? The religious deviations is obviously a far more complex, cultural matter.
I did and do follow his teachings and I only mentioned a false teacher at first because I said you would likely make fun. I then followed by providing genuine names. Don't be silly, you know I provided real names.Quote:
You mentioned only one teacher vaguely, and did not even follow his teachings for enlightenment apparently (therefore he was irrelevant to this purpose). You also mentioned a false teacher, who you made up for fun. Is this supposed to be convincing and how is it genuine?
No no, my intent is not to refute the realities of those things I study - I want to adapt new beliefs. I want my current beliefs to change and become modified over time as they should be. While I do not whole heartedly believe in spirituality, I certainly adapt and believe profoundly in many parts of it. My philosophy takes a significant interactionist approach which gives room for this adaptation - not elimination.Quote:
I don't think you have done much spiritual reading at all, perhaps because your primary motivation seems to be focused on refuting its reality rather than learning about it yourself. You look for science in non-science. But that is my opinion, please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is really not my intent to prove you "wrong" or something. I really just want to hear or read why you believe what you believe so that I can possibly believe it. And yes, I already know, and we've already talked about, the personal nature of what you talk about. But that is the problem, isn't it? How can you help a non-believer believe what you believe if they have to already have a pre-conception of what it is or have a "pesronal revelation"? You can't, correct? Then why are you offering ubiquitous "advice" about your personal revelation like it is divine teaching..?
That is the problem though - you think you are offering information to be helpful, but you are not. I have constantly asked how can yo believe what you believe that gives incentive for someone else to believe it? But you can't. And then you rationalize this as over-analysis and intellectualization.Quote:
And you take a pessimistic position and look for reasons to argue while totally oblivious of ways in which the information can be helpful. I could save you some time and effort. Unfortunately, on the other hand I could also serve as a major problem within your over-analysis and intellectualization. A point of perception.
This is desperate defense of your position because you're just constantly defending yourself rather than giving justification or reasoning.
I am not asking you to justify your beliefs to stay on the board, okay? Your posts have seriously been bothering me, and others, because of your condescending spiritual arrogance. While you may believe your intention to be good, you act very antagonizing to those that do not already believe what you believe.Quote:
Nobody knows what it's like to be "me", but myself. Likewise, nobody knows what it's like to be "you", but yourself. Do you see me telling you to piss-off out of the forums if not demanding total justification of your belief systems? "Preaching" or not, you are probably just as passionate for what you believe in.
~
You guys DO realize that you are proving that there can be no world peace, right? Two people with different beliefs = conflict.
Although I don't know if it is exemplified here, there is a difference between healthy conflict and destructive conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
Though I believe we have the alright religion now (as many beliefs as world population) I'd like to have more control over it. A group of people who are chosen by me or a team I assigned for this job would be researching, doing experiments etc. (science stuff); another group would be producing art in branches I decide. And the rest would be supplying resources (food and other material). I'd get to decide who can be together. And there would be no intentional pain caused by people, nobody would ever be executed or tortured or caused physical pain in any way NO MATTER what they do. And I don't offer a solution but I'd definitely wouldn't keep the current education, administration (governments and all), law systems either.
No, it's not. Since you want me to ignore what constitutes for my point, you do not get it. Forget it.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I know about what you said. Altogether, you briefly mentioned one true teacher. Beside the point, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
So in essence, you are unfamiliar and you are curious. But you limit yourself to what you already know, thinking that it has a relationship. This really depends upon your purpose in life. Your problem is not everybody's problem, thus.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Yes, you can. However, the mind's pre-conceptions and presumptions are self-created; they cannot logically be re-contextualized or transcended.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
What use has advice? Am I willing to listen? For what purpose? These are important questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Yes, that is your problem. If am unhelpful to you, it is unwise for you to go out criticizing me as I am. This is because I do not suddenly become unhelpful to everybody else, as you are not the center of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
You persist in mixing words and contexts. Do you find yourself becoming only more confused? You seem to want me to justify myself but to fit your exact, idealistic purpose. For example, you wish to see spirituality "fit" within science, but not the other way around. I have already told you that this is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Also, you mistake that an abstract subjective concept cannot be used in abstract. You over-simplify that I cannot talk about that which is subjective, when I obviously can, and therefore for a different purpose. The very fact that you do not subjectively hold this state of awareness grants potential use to this information.
Overall, I think you confuse "arrogance" with the power of the information itself. Just because I am offering no argument or "falsifiability" doesn't mean I am arrogant. I may be arrogant within argument, however that is not my true intention. Those who argue against that which is defenseless may evidently attract more problems to themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I advise you to:
- Reconsider the pragmatism and utility of spiritual information.
- Read carefully, with the questions and the answers, the context in which they're stated. Do not extract words and juggle similar terms together while ignoring their context. Again, this just leads to frustration when they're later realized to not coincide.
Sounds totalitarian to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by firat
Yeah, I want you to forget it because it is constituting your point as it is not the point I am trying to make. Don't be dumb now. You're reaching for straws now and the only reason I can see why is to save face - I agree with you and you don't like that..?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
...you mentioned it as an ad hominem for my spiritual inclination and now it is beside the point? Okay, keep that in mind then when you say I have not read any spiritual literature or have any interest in it instead of trying to mention it and denigrate my intent.Quote:
I know about what you said. Altogether, you briefly mentioned one true teacher. Beside the point, anyway.
What you said is a contradiction; if I am limiting myself to what I already know, then how am I also claiming to be unfamiliar and curious? I am trying to learn - nothing more than that. Stop desperately trying to paint me as a concrete and adamant empiricist.Quote:
So in essence, you are unfamiliar and you are curious. But you limit yourself to what you already know, thinking that it has a relationship. This really depends upon your purpose in life. Your problem is not everybody's problem, thus.
My problem is not everybody's..? My "problem" is that I desire to learn - are you suggesting that I ought to stop questioning for the sake of those that do not want to learn? If so, those people aren't here. So don't worry.
So, how can you discuss it with someone?Quote:
Yes, you can. However, the mind's pre-conceptions and presumptions are self-created; they cannot logically be re-contextualized or transcended.
Tell me then why you go about the forum telling people where to read certain things and how to consider their spiritual affinity if you hold this to be a conundrum?Quote:
What use has advice? Am I willing to listen? For what purpose? These are important questions.
So, because you are being unhelpful to many people on the board, which is my complaint, you suggest that we should all simply ignore you..?Quote:
Yes, that is your problem. If am unhelpful to you, it is unwise for you to go out criticizing me as I am. This is because I do not suddenly become unhelpful to everybody else, as you are not the center of the universe.
This is the most arrogant defense I hear. It is similar to me saying, "If you don't like me kicking puppies and calling you an asshole, then stop paying attention". You're isolated in the subjective and ignoring that external factors can take place and general respect is crucial.
I DO NOT want to see spirituality fit into science. The fact is, you have not provided any concrete reason or purpose for your belief in spirituality. Unfortunately, reason and purpose are science, so, what you are really saying is that I want to give reason and purpose to spirituality. If you feel that there is no reason to believe in spirituality, if there is no reason, no purpose, and that the only reason you can believe is simply because you can believe, then say THAT.Quote:
You persist in mixing words and contexts. Do you find yourself becoming only more confused? You seem to want me to justify myself but to fit your exact, idealistic purpose. For example, you wish to see spirituality "fit" within science, but not the other way around. I have already told you that this is impossible.
See.. you're taking the stance that your philosophy is fundamentally true and overpowering divine? Correct? Should I bear our the red carpet and worship your ass for providing something that has no reason or purposeful justification? Furthermore, do you understand the purpose of falsifiability?Quote:
Overall, I think you confuse "arrogance" with the power of the information itself. Just because I am offering no argument or "falsifiability" doesn't mean I am arrogant. I may be arrogant within argument, however that is not my true intention. Those who argue against that which is defenseless may evidently attract more problems to themselves.
Firstly, the pragmatism and utility of spiritual information - tell me what it is and how it cannot be applied outside of the belief of spirituality? In other words, what are the pragmatics that are not necessarily dependent on spirituality? Do these exist in ANY other paradigm?Quote:
I advise you to:
- Reconsider the pragmatism and utility of spiritual information.
- Read carefully, with the questions and the answers, the context in which they're stated. Do not extract words and juggle similar terms together while ignoring their context. Again, this just leads to frustration when they're later realized to not coincide.
Furthermore, you've completely deviated from the original point that I agree with you and instead now trying to, what, argue a completely different topic?
~
Same thing if everyone was the same religion, whatever it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Of course, the fact that we have thoughts and feelings based on our own situations is why we have different religions. So, yeah.
I once asked you, in no offense, what you have studied. Hopefully it would illustrate where you have shown interest and what I should emphasize, and/or what I should assume you already know. Often you ask a surprising amount of questions as if you are very new to such topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
It is beside the point in where you lied about your teachers and where you didn't. I was simply shocked that you had the immaturity to do so at all. Most people would have at least a few teachers and/or religions at the top of their head, whereas you had barely one. And you want to learn? I don't think I'm clear on what you want to learn, and for what purpose.
As I have said, don't be offended, as I cannot "paint" you anything. Secondly, I did see the contradiction, which I would note now. What is this "adaptive" selective learning business? What "parts" of spirituality do you accept? My perception is that you are in disagreement of other information for the sake a different purpose, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I am basically asking you to stop generalizing about me and the forum on account of your own feelings. You will have a problem trying to understand spirituality while negating the spirit; by whatever name.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Discuss what?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Where to read certain things... hmm. I have occasionally provided re/sources, and have rarely asked of others current body of spiritual knowledge. The questions to oneself are important as the answers may or may not be related to the context in which I am speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That's a horrible analogy. Talking with others holding the intent of refining understandings and solving problems is not equivalent to someone kicking puppies. It is merely your own perception that I am out hurting and being unhelpful; relative to you. You're really complaining for your own frustration, yet hold that everybody would think as you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I am pretty sure I have respect for others; even when others disrespect me.
No I think you've said something about that you conclusively want spirituality to be re-contextualised within empiricism or some branch of science. Otherwise, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Since what I mainly reference is Advaita, it is already fundamentally True, holding its core in many religious traditions/teachings/teachers as Divinity. If your purpose and reason is to strive for Truth and for Self-Realization (etc), then looking into what I am saying may be useful for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Yes. It might be helpful to see the falsifiability of what is false, rather than what is True - as the Truth is unfalsifiable. So essentially, I'd examine the falsifiability of the ego's structure and its opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Often it can be used to find happiness, meaning, self-esteem, power, self-control, purpose, well-being and health in ones life. These are not restricted to the spiritual paradigm, however spiritually usually leads one automatically "to" them.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
What I would consider to be unique to the spiritual paradigm, is the discovery of Truth as the Ultimate meaning, the Ultimate Reality, Self-identity and Self-Realization as Spirit. This is concerned with radical subjectivity and an inclination to discover ones Truest Identity, to reveal the origins of what is known to be Divine.
Yes, we have deviated together.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Don't be an idiot, really. If you do not understand why I fabricated the teachers of mine because of your spiritual arrogance, then you are simply in denial of your own arrogance. I tried to make it obvious that I did not want to mention my teachers because I was under the sincere impression that you would criticize them unless they were of the same teaching as yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
See, this is what I mean by you "painting" me; you constantly say shit like me trying to disagree with you on things and that I am desperately trying to argue with you on things when I'M NOT. Why do you do this? Do you crave arguments? This is what I mean by your own ignorance. You claim to have decent arguments but fail to see how they are not applicable to me and yet you still try to perpetually try to apply them to me and find your own reasons. For instance, your first response in this thread was a complete misunderstanding of my intent - competition with religion. Really, you are more blind than you obviously think of yourself.Quote:
As I have said, don't be offended, as I cannot "paint" you anything. Secondly, I did see the contradiction, which I would note now. What is this "adaptive" selective learning business? What "parts" of spirituality do you accept? My perception is that you are in disagreement of other information for the sake a different purpose, right?
Is that so? Do you actually want me to dig up all the times you have antagonized people with your spiritual arrogance? Because I can, very easily.Quote:
I am basically asking you to stop generalizing about me and the forum on account of your own feelings. You will have a problem trying to understand spirituality while negating the spirit; by whatever name.
Don't be dumb - pay attention. This is where you ought to go back and read over what was said, but you'll likely just delete it and try to find a reason to argue against me rather than see my point.Quote:
Discuss what?
You have only provided a vague website that you have already said is a little contributory factor into your beliefs. Perhaps you will consider sharing more to make your beliefs a little more believable than personal meandering.Quote:
Where to read certain things... hmm. I have occasionally provided re/sources, and have rarely asked of others current body of spiritual knowledge. The questions to oneself are important as the answers may or may not be related to the context in which I am speaking.
You fail to see my point in the analogy and yet you still demonstrate your vice again.Quote:
That's a horrible analogy. Talking with others holding the intent of refining understandings and solving problems is not equivalent to someone kicking puppies. It is merely your own perception that I am out hurting and being unhelpful; relative to you. You're really complaining for your own frustration, yet hold that everybody would think as you do.
I am pretty sure I have respect for others; even when others disrespect me.
If I say insult X, it is up to you to be insulted by it, correct? Just like it is up to you to feel upset if I kick a puppy.
If you fail to see the problem in this, then I consider reading spiritual literature or finding a spiritual teacher *Sarcastic condescending yet mocking grin*
Really? I have said that? Quote me.Quote:
No I think you've said something about that you conclusively want spirituality to be re-contextualised within empiricism or some branch of science. Otherwise, what?
Holy shit, a reference from really? Okay, I will examine this thoroughly before making any comments on it because I am ignorant to Advaita.Quote:
Since what I mainly reference is Advaita, it is already fundamentally True, holding its core in many religious traditions/teachings/teachers as Divinity. If your purpose and reason is to strive for Truth and for Self-Realization (etc), then looking into what I am saying may be useful for you.
You obviously have no understanding of falsifiability and it's importance to truth. Truth cannot be true without being falsifiable. Please prove me wrong and demonstrate why this is important? Furthermore, are you able to do this without changing the topic? I truly want you to answer this and get to the point rather than vague anecdotes and deviations from my question because you might find we agree more fundamentally than you think.Quote:
Yes. It might be helpful to see the falsifiability of what is false, rather than what is True - as the Truth is unfalsifiable. So essentially, I'd examine the falsifiability of the ego's structure and its opinions.
I respectfully and most humbly admit that this is something that can only exist in your spirituality because there are no reasons for anyone else outside your own subjectivity to believe in this. As an important note, do you not think that one must begin without any pre-conception of this "truth" and that, in that state of individuality, the individual ought to be able to have some kind of self-actualization, as per Maslow's hierarchy of needs?Quote:
Often it can be used to find happiness, meaning, self-esteem, power, self-control, purpose, well-being and health in ones life. These are not restricted to the spiritual paradigm, however spiritually usually leads one automatically "to" them.
What I would consider to be unique to the spiritual paradigm, is the discovery of Truth as the Ultimate meaning, the Ultimate Reality, Self-identity and Self-Realization as Spirit. This is concerned with radical subjectivity and an inclination to discover ones Truest Identity, to reveal the origins of what is known to be Divine.
~
lol. I understand what you said, however the manner in which you said it was childish. And here we are, back at the beginning again. Nevermind.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Don't get me wrong, I asked sincere questions. If you wouldn't mind settling down a little and answering them, that would be appreciated. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
It is a point of perception. Like I said, my intent is not to truly be arrogant and tower over everyone. Rest. You can quote all the times I have maturely attempted to resolve dilemmas, if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
But I will admit again, as I have before, I have continuously been spiritually naive and spoken to people who live under very contracted life-view paradigms; as conditions of consciousness rather than academia. The crux of any spiritual blockage may not have been identified at all, but that I would respond to the "world of effects", rather than seeing the critical scope that is characteristic of their world-view paradigm; that is, the source of their problem.
Apart from the prejudgement, could you please answer the question? "Discuss it" is very broad without referring to the original sentence. You might mean "How can you discuss the personal revelation?" but I am not sure. If that's what you mean, then I'd respond by stating that the revelation is actually impersonal and does not depend on the contents of one's mind, since it is the absolute context. In this way are all people equal; in this way there is no possible exclusion of oneself from the Truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That "vague website" (ConsciousnessProject.org) actually hosted a great amount of information to do with the research of consciousness and spirituality, founded by Dr. David Hawkins - who is actually a major source and spiritual teacher of mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I remember mentioning this for some further background, also:
From "Define happy for me" (Pg 8),
Quote:
Originally Posted by really
It is up to you to ignore that my intention is not to condescend or mock. But please consider it for your own sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I remember from Doubting My Faith (Pg 5),Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
The only difference is the original word "spirit" was just referenced as "spirituality", however I see no fundamental difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
We have already discussed this, namely in subject of the "cogito". This is totally related (to "I"). "I think, therefore I am" is falsifiable in the same way "The Truth is all there Is" is falsifiable by what is commonly termed ignorance. As it Is, however, it is still unfalsifiable and beyond all argument (I.e. The saying: Nobody is enlightened, and nobody is un-enlightened).Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Can you justify this response? You have admitted you are ignorant to non-duality or Advatia, yet this is exactly what my second paragraph is concerned with.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
There are no requirements to realize the Truth, since it is already here and now. Transcendently, it could be said that the ego needs to be transcended to reveal the Truth. However, the contrary could also be said, for the Truth's immannency as Self Is actually already, just like "transcend the clouds" is not a requirement for the sun to actually shine, because it is already.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Self-Actualization is of a different purpose and is clearly independent from Realization. Therefore it in a different context; which is totally obvious by what the terms are called from the beginning.
Whoa Onus!
Cool line of thought on this topic
If everyone shared how I see
Everyone would see themselves in each other
In doing so they would recognize their own beliefs being expressed in the beliefs of others. Nothing to fight over, but rather everyone would be able to appreciate and enjoy each others ways of seeing.
Interesting exercise in self reflection.
Thank you
Thank you, that was beautiful. It is nice to see your contributions in the forum again, NonDualistic. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
Seconded. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by really
~
Sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to be a Mod, and I appreciate that you created this topic, so it is you choice, but if you (O'nus and really) want to argue, can you please keep it on topic or at least relatively short? These huge blocks of text are making this an unattractive conversation for a lot of people, and I like this topic, and want to keep it as popular as it is now. If you understand where I'm coming from, could you please take it into account?
Gather all the beer,weed, Qat, shrooms, dmt, salvia, misc. psychedelics you can find. Biggest SESHION EVER.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
PEACE ON EARTH
Those kinds of threads result from a debate that has gotten really good. You can't have one without the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apopholis
I agree and we have stopped. To me, NonDualistic had powerfully settled it with his sincere words and divine simplicity. He reminded me that O'nus and myself (and everybody else) are Divine, OneSelf, and to otherwise argue over our flimsy matters is simply a natural insanity. Divine amnesia...Quote:
Originally Posted by Apopholis
I have found a way to admit this, but it was very interesting. In the Context of Self, there is no other. All "otherness" is purely perception and mentation. This can also be denoted in my Perception Is Not Reality topic, in Philosophy.
That was beautiful!Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
And so true. Thanks for the mind-food :-)
"If everyone shared how I see
Everyone would see themselves in each other
In doing so they would recognize their own beliefs being expressed in the beliefs of others. Nothing to fight over, but rather everyone would be able to appreciate and enjoy each others ways of seeing."
If everybody had exactly the same beliefs, wars for dominance would start; as "there can be only one".
And a world where everybody is like me would be extremely boring, not beautiful.
Heh, that's what I said, except I was enjoying the irony more.Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
Universalism without irony is heresy! Heathen, you must relent!
;)